On Nov. 3, Portland voters will be presented with referendum Question 2, a proposed addition to Portland’s zoning ordinance that is printed in full detail on each ballot.

Although the language of the proposed ordinance may seem dense and legalistic, the purpose and effect of this proposal are simple and straightforward. The zoning law reforms proposed by Question 2 would:

about the author

•Protect one of Portland’s premiere public panoramas from being sacrificed to whatever form of real estate redevelopment may ultimately be carried out on the former Portland Co. site at 58 Fore St.

•Give the city’s public authorities a tool to protect other unique public view places in Portland.

•Require landowners who seek to have their property rezoned to disclose at least in a general way their plans for the property if the rezoning is allowed.

A “yes” vote on Question 2 will not prevent redevelopment of the Portland Co. property. The public view that would be protected affects only the small portion of this 10-acre parcel that is adjacent to Fore Street between Waterville and Atlantic streets.

Even there, a developer would have room to erect a six-story building on the flat land below Fore Street without significantly affecting the view.

Nor would these reforms hinder other projects in the city. Before a public view can achieve protection, it must be rated and evaluated by a citizen panel. Ultimately the City Council would decide which additional public views deserve protection and how much.

One of the difficulties in evaluating the Portland Co. project is that no one knows who will be the ultimate redeveloper of this property and what that developer will put there. The current owners do not seem to be ready to commit to any particular project, but are apparently “packaging” the property for resale or partnership with larger-scale developers.

While it is understandable that fewer land-use restrictions would make their property more attractive for this purpose and hence more valuable, it seems foolish to give out a blank check to destroy a cherished public panorama of Portland Harbor, the ship channel and the lighthouses without having any idea of what would replace it.

The Question 2 reforms would simply require city officials to consider identified public views when making zoning decisions, and would require landowners to disclose what they intend to do when this process is occurring. The ordinance tracks similar ordinances in other cities, including the “other Portland” in Oregon.

It must be stressed that the Question 2 reforms would protect only views enjoyed by the public from streets, parks and other public grounds, and not the views of private parties from their premises.

The public views that would likely obtain protection from these reforms would be relatively few, but several of them, such as the panoramic city view from Fort Sumner Park, are notable and irreplaceable.

Ordinarily, public referendum campaigns are poor and inefficient ways to address changes to zoning and local land-use regulations. However, it appears that Portland’s public officials have failed to adhere to their own comprehensive plan.

They appear to be willing to sacrifice a remarkable public view amenity without any real idea of what would replace it. These circumstances give the Portland electorate no choice but to decide this issue by vote of the people.

Portland’s beautiful and remarkable urban skyline is already interrupted by unfortunate monuments to the insensitivity of past developers and the short-sightedness of past generations of Portland public officials.

If the current landowners of the Portland Co. property had real plans to replace the panoramic harbor view from Fore Street with something better, we would have seen them by now.

Our public amenities, including panoramic views of our surrounding landscapes and seascapes from our streets and public grounds, help make life in Portland special for all of us.

We should not just abandon them in favor of unspecified private development plans that we will have to live with for a long, long time. Portland voters will do themselves and their children a great favor by stepping up and voting “Yes” on Question 2.

Here at MaineToday Media we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion.

To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use. Click here to flag and report a comment that violates our terms of use.

Miaskovsky

More fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I really have a hard time understanding this idea that this site could possibly be worse than it is today after somebody has poured millions of dollars into it. It just doesn’t make any sense.

The fact is that anybody can walk up Fore St and see the “view” that will be changed. Most of the “view” is overgrowth and old junky buildings, and the rest is over to the tank farm in South Portland. I have yet to see anybody standing there to admire this “view,” as everybody has seemed to notice that shortly up the street is a vastly superior one from Fort Williams Park.

John Krasowski

AGREE

reallly??

Zoning provides certainty and protects everyone’s property rights equally. Rezoning is simply spot zoning which in most cases is illegal because it says ONE person’s rights are more important then someone else’s, because they are somehow “special”. It violates equal protection under the law AND creates chaos and conflict.
Zoning are the laws and rules that govern building and development for EVERYONE . They shouldn’t be allowed to be changed willy nilly , especially without a specific plan revealed to the public. This creates UNCERTAINTY for everyone…..It says your neighbor can build what ever they want beside you, without you even KNOWING!!!
Nearly 100% of developers build within the rules of zoning. Nearly 100% of developers are good neighbor BECAUSE they build with in the allowed rules. Those who do not follow the rules create chaos. Request for rezonings are rare.
The Planning Board job is to neither facilitate nor obstruct development .Their job is to ensure that the ZONING laws/rules are followed. They failed here. In the past this community has declared that our views are important to protect; they are a critical part of who we are AS a community!!!
This Planning Board unfortunately is by it;s nature biased and Pro development. 6/7 of them currently make there living during the day connected to the development community….several of them ,according to their bios, actually make their living helping developers TRUMP and thwart established zoning regulation!!!. WE need a balanced Planning Board who understands their job is to follow the laws and protect THIS community not to further their day job and recruit and collect customers for themselves or their firms!!!!
In my opinion , this referenda doesn’t go far enough to protect the community.

jbs01

Zoning does not provide certainty.
Zoning provides a set of guidelines that shape investment and development.
But make no mistake, zoning has never provided certainty to any neighborhood. Nor can it do so and be legal and fair at the same time.

John Krasowski

Scare tactics running rampant. Guess whoever cherishes that sliver of a view to Casco Bay can’t make it up over the hill. Again, if we are going to this extreme, let’s go all out. Tear down the existing structures, yes, including the Portland House. Ooops forgot about all those buildings between the street and the water. Let’s take advantage of our natural beauty. I mean, come on why not make it possible for everyone to see the entire harbor. All this started because someone drinking their morning coffee can look out their window and see that view, which I love btw. It is not like we are obliterating views of the harbor. Can we please think about this and allow a sensible project to build and move this city into the future. These developers have bent over backwards to please these naysayers. Sorry, but there has to be some kind of profit motivation to build and build responsibly. And oh yeah, what about that great walkway along water’s edge, no view?

reallly??

We HAVE all those view, thankfully, because in earlier times we had sensible people in charge who protected them. The zoning is what allows and demands developers to build sensibly and nearly 100% of them do. Rezoning should be banned and illegal. Some people already think they are illegal. Courts often declare they are illegal..

jbs01

This is a view that the public can only enjoy from a sidewalk, correct?

And that street level view – without any amenities – is already significantly obscured by trees, buildings and a fence.

John Krasowski

so a heritage has to mire you in the past. We are bleeding our youth because sight lines deniers discourage moving forward. I would agree with you if this was the only view, but it is not. This is an unacceptable campaign over a slive, yeah a mere sliver of our views. That is unless you are incapable of going out of your kitchen to see that one view. How many pedestrians are on that sidewalk enjoying that sliver of a view. That view is exclusive to those living on those street and dangerously by those driving by. You’ve trumped up an issue that is a non starter for the progress of tthis city. Or maybe you love living in the safe secure past without a thought towards building a future for our young people, our future.

Dominic Leo

That is the only view of the ocean. What, do you think we live on a peninsula on the Atlantic Ocean or something? You think there’s some magical cove in the middle of town? Let me guess there’s a path around it? Yeah okay pal. Like around that fore st view you’re gonna tell me there’s some giant eastern prom with miles of ocean and island views. Like there’s some ft Allen park, stone steps leading down to a trail, a trail that goes along ocean to ocean gateway and maine state pier. Like there’s ferry boats and a town across a bridge over water that has some bug light park , ft Williams and two lights, all along ocean

As the author puts it, ” Although the language of the proposed ordinance may seem dense and legalistic” …. Yes, herein lies the problem with ONE person writing 8 pages of law that has undergone zero public review for an entire city. The Soul of Portland, has admitted that one person, likely a direct abutter, has written this ordinance – people should be reminded that this referendum language can’t be amended or repealed for 5 years if it’s passed. I don’t think you could find a single person in Portland who thinks our laws should be written unilaterally by one person. This ordinance is extremely overreaching but don’t take my word for it. Here is a direct quote from the language of the ordinance: “(b) Scenic resources: Scenic resources include, but are not limited to … (3) public natural resources or public lands visited by the general public or viewed by the general public from a public place …. The language is incredibly broad, essentially all public lands, visited by the general public, can be scenic resources, and views (to and from) those public lands can be protected. So, given that virtually any public view could be a scenic resource, including any view of the Fore River, how exactly would you build anything? Voter’s should absolutely read the proposed 8 page ordinance because the people behind it continue to misinform the public on these issues. Please vote NO on Question 2 and keep moving Portland forward to an economically viable and vibrant city.

sequoiaqueneaux

That view sucks. Unless you like oil tanks.

Miaskovsky

The “heritage” of the Portland Company site included grain silos which were pretty tall. Should we rebuild those?

I think for the future we need to get this site into the current century.

munjoyfan

Those grain elevators were spectacular buildings, and represented Portland’s growth as a port for the city of Montreal and the grain growing provinces to the west before the St Lawrence Seaway was built. They provided good-paying waterfront jobs and were an important part of Portland’s heritage. They burned for three days. Personally I would love to see that kind of industrial production return to the waterfront, and prosperity to Maine. The recent Chamber of Commerce report has revealed that during this era of intense real estate development for the city, the city’s average incomes have DECLINED by $300 per year. We need a better economic development strategy than simply real estate development.

jbs01

May I ask you what was the income decline over the same period nationally and in maine overall?

Cherry picking unrelated facts to bolster an argument is pretty disingenuous. Are you actually trying to correlate an influx of capital and investment in Portland to a decline in incomes?

Have there been any other disruptive macro events that might be important to add to that narrative? Hmmm, what else has happened in the last decade that might have created such a decrease in incomes?

I am sure there was something…

Vince

The worst president, like, ever!?!?!

jbs01

I think so too. But what I was trying to do was illustrate how ridiculous Munjoy Fan’s assertion was.

The decline in income and investment surge is hardly the cause and effect that Munjoy Fan was alluding to. I would like to have seen what the decline in income would have been had we not had the influx of investment.

Dominic Leo

So you have no problem with the writers of this 8 page manifesto having a 4 story, non historic matching, view blocking addition on their fore st home? You good with that?

Thomas Silverstein

The site will get developed even if 2 succeeds, the developers cannot walk away from this investment. Voting Yes on 2 just provides more oversight. It will not stop anything from getting developed there, the only people who stand to loose are the developers because their bottom line will be affected but the city of portland and the residents will benefit from voting yes on 2. Mark my words this site will get developed if 2 succeeds.

mgreilly

I certainly hope the residents of Portland are smart enough to see through this referendum and vote no. Support this development. JUST SAY NO!

Vince

The residents are complete morons.

EM Burke

I was party, in a way I now no illadmire, to what happened at the corner of Fore and Pearl Street, since I painted the mural on the backside of the Ocean Gateway Parking Garage, a building that should NEVER have been erected. At least, not at this place.

I do believe we Portlanders have a responsibility to keep Portland to some aesthetic standards, and I was grateful that our recent mayor and planning committee made one of the newer building projects change their exterior to be more complicated–less some Soviet block buster.

Complicated–requiring more skill, expertise, and, of course, more money.

Yes, beauty is not cheap, if one understands that creating beauty means being careful, etc.

I do not think the residents on the East End have any dibs on beauty, at least not based on what I’ve seen, so their arguments for saving their views seem bogus. When they save me the sore sights they’ve offered,….

When what they do with their individual buildings meet the same standards they require of others, I’ll think again.

best regards, Elizabeth M. Burke

EM Burke

I “now no longer admire”… my laptop is having trouble catching my tapnotes…

but Okay, I’ll come give my personal judgment on the color of your house, the way it is painted, the landscaping, etc, and tell you my personal opinion about not what I see from your vantage point, but what I see from mine–on the street.

Then, then maybe we can have a true conversation about aesthetics, property values, etc.

I really don’t think that will ever happen, and that, in fact, those arguing for a “view” may have as lousy aesthetics as those who built and those who allowed to be built the Ocean Gate Parkway Garage.

?? EM Burke

EM Burke

And what is pathetic is that this is an argument at all. There are far far better places to build than toward Marginal Way, since it will be flooded shortly. There’s no reason to build more on the hill… it’s fine as it is.

Falmouth, on the other hand, is just brimming with possibilities… and since it is so near, and so damn noisy, because the freeway sends all its noise downhill, the properties there, severely overpriced because of the noise, will nose-dive soon enough. If you want the poor to have a goodenough place to live, send them to Falmouth and increase the bus service.

I grew up in this town but you couldn’t pay me to live there. Too damn noisy.

Where I live in Portland is more quiet. Nicer.

EM Burke

Vince

Time for bed grandpa.

EM Burke

Oh yea…. right down to Waites Landing, Water’s Edge Road, or the new development at Speare’s …. between Falmouth and Cumberland.

FREEWAY SOUNDS… just to compete with your Sunday morning opera from the Met.

Enjoy.

EM Burke

And I do not live in either the East or West End. I live just beyond the bounds of the inner city. Good enough.

I think both camps have just entirely missed the real issues: The real issue is that the city is growing, and it’s going to have to expand…. and create new neighborhoods….vibrant neighborhoods. You can only stuff so much fluff into one pillow.

E

Mainer

Once again, we have a Soul of Portland member willing to misinform the public to further the SOP’s narrow agenda. I’ll focus on the most egregious of the misinformation, “A “yes” vote on Question 2 will not prevent redevelopment of the Portland Co. property. The public view that would be protected affects only the small portion of this 10-acre parcel that is adjacent to Fore Street between Waterville and Atlantic streets.” This is blatantly inaccurate – According to the details in the referendum itself, the overlay covers roughly 6 acres of the 58 Fore Street property from Waterville to Munjoy Street, and Fore Street to the Fore River. The author claims 6 acres, of 10 acres is a small portion?